 OVERVIEW

2.1 In its review of NPE, the NPERC was avowedly guided by the following principal concerns:

i) Equity and social justice

ii) Decentralisation of educational management at all levels

iii) Inculcation of values indispensable for creation of an enlightened and humane society

V) Empowerment for work.

2.2 These concerns are unexceptionable and are largely in consonance with NPE. However, we feel that the concept of participative educational order as outlined by the NPERC was rather restrictive. The NPERC had rightly underlined the Importance of involving educationists, teachers and educational institutions not only in educational improvement but also in the overall process of development. However, the concept of participatory educational order should go beyond involvement of educational institutions and should extend to the community itself. NPE had enunciated that local communities, through appropriate bodies, would be assigned a major role in the programme of school improvement. The POA had elaborated some of the mechanisms for enlisting people's participation in achieving UEE such as Village Education Committee and Micro-planning. The TLCs have demonstrated the efficacy and the immense potential of community mobilisation for achieving educational goals. People's participation in education -- particularly elementary education and adult literacy -- should be in the form of informed facilitation of achievement of educational goals, and through a well formulated system of overseeing the laxities and under-performance of the system.

2.3 The NPERC made it explicit that much of what was contained in its report was dealt with by many committees and commissions; however, many of the ideas and concepts had remained on paper without being translated into action and, therefore, its effort was largely one of advising on possible alternative modalities. More specifically in regard to roles, goals and values in education, it acknowledged that it was in basic agreement with the NPE perspective and thrust and that it had only elaborated on certain "key result areas" that did not receive adequate ground level priority. Consequently only a few of the recommendations of the NPERC have policy implications. After a careful consideration of the recommendations of the NPERC as well as developments since NPE, we have come to the conclusion that while very little of policy requires reformulation the POA needs to be revised considerably. In the body of the report we have indicated which of 3¸3 Š the recommendations of the NPERC need to

be taken into account for the revision of the POA.

2.4 of the few recommendations of the NPERC, which have policy implications, the following represent major departures from NPE:

i) Enlarging the scope of Article 45 of the Constitution so as to cover ECCE (R.No. 104).

ii) Making the right to education a fundamental right (R.No. 145).

iii) Non-Formal Education (NFE): NPE suggested a large and systematic programme of NFE for children who cannot attend whole-day schools. The NPERC, however, opined that UEE is better achieved by a single system of non-formalised school and that a separate programme of NFE is not desirable (R.Nos.152(c), 153-155, 162-165, 170].

iv) Adult Education : The NPERC diluted the emphasis on adult literacy and was sceptical of the "Ernakulam Experiment" (R.Nos.178, 180, 182 & 185).

v) Vocationalisation : Both NPE and the NPERC held vocationalisation of secondary education to be crucial; however, NPE envisaged vocational education to be a distinct stream while the NPERC felt that dichotomy between academic and vocational. streams was not desirable and that a core component of vocationalisation should be part of the curriculum for all students at the secondary stage. Further, according to NPE, vocational courses should ordinarily be provided at the +2 stage; however the NPERC suggested an integrated design of vocational education to be operated for classes IX to XII (R.Nos.188 & 189).

vi) Navodaya Schools : The NPERC suggested three alternatives on Navodaya Schools all of which involved a major modification of the scheme (R.No.103).

vii) National Council of Higher Education (NCHE) : The NPERC did not consider it desirable to set up a national level super body to co-ordinate the functioning of various bodies in the field of education like the UGC, ICAR, AICTE, ICME, etc. It felt that two committees -- one of the ministers concerned and the other of secretaries -- would do (R.No. 219).

2.5 For reasons which are spelt out in the body of the Report we suggest reformulation of policy only in regard to Vocational Education, NCHE and AICTE. While we do favour retention of the 3ï3 Š present policy formulation in regard to a distinct stream for vocational education at the +2 stage, we find the idea of a core vocational course attractive. Generic vocational courses which cut across various occupational fields

and which are primarily non-occupation specific have many potential benefits. We are also in agreement with the view of the NPERC in regard to NCHE. We are of the view that it is necessary to amend the AICTE Act so that the role of AICTE is akin to that of the UGC. To that extent para 6.19 of NPE requires modification.

2.6 While we are in full agreement with the strategies envisaged by NPE/POA for achieving UEE and strongly advocate the operationalisation on a large scale of important components like the Village Education Committee, Participatory Micro-Planning and School Mapping, we recommend reformulation of para 5.12 of NPE which laid down the targets for achieving UPE and UEE. We have indicated in the report the important elements of the strategies for achieving UEE; the NPE/POA should be revised to suitably incorporate these elements.

2.7 Another area which requires policy concentration is secondary education. While UEE in totality is still an elusive goal and much ground has to be covered, the considerable investment the Centre and States made to promote elementary education has the inevitable impact on the demand for secondary education. A significant secondary consequence of the total literacy campaigns has been a further boost in the demand for elementary education as well as secondary education. We feel, therefore, that while UEE and adult literacy should continue to have an overriding priority, the time has come to bring about a planned expansion of secondary education facilities all over the country. Removal of disparities and equalisation of educational opportunities should inform such an expansion. It is because of this perception that we decided to make a departure from the structure of the NPERC report and devote a separate chapter on secondary education. We urge that the policy be re-formulated to bring about the new initiatives that are required in secondary education.